Read-only Sales Leader Guide desk: writers roster and magazine pieces. Public, no authentication.
Each tool maps cleanly to either a single resource or a list operation, with get_magazine_piece/list_magazine_pieces and get_writer/list_writers clearly separated by cardinality. There is no overlap or ambiguity between the two resource types or their retrieval modes.
All tool names follow a consistent get_/list_ verb prefix with a lowercase snake_case resource noun. The pattern is uniform and predictable across both writers and magazine pieces.
Four tools is well-scoped for a focused read-only desk server exposing exactly two resources with list and detail retrieval. Each tool earns its place and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface fully covers the apparent read-only domain: listing and fetching both writers and magazine pieces covers all expected consumption workflows. No create/update/delete operations are implied by the server's purpose, so their absence is not a gap.
Return one full juxtaposition piece: the question, each writer's section body, and the Editor's weaving coda.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | |
| title | Yes | |
| editor | Yes | |
| format | Yes | |
| question | Yes | |
| sections | Yes | |
| generated | Yes | |
| editorCoda | No | |
| api_version | Yes | |
| writerSlugs | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: it returns the full piece with named sections rather than a summary or list, with no implied side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a colon-delimited specification of the return contents. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one required parameter, safety annotations present, and an output schema available, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and where the slug comes from. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the slug parameter is documented as 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces.' The description adds no additional parameter nuance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one full juxtaposition piece'), and enumerates its contents: the question, each writer's section body, and the Editor's weaving coda. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools and get_writer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'one full' plus the schema's 'Magazine piece slug from list_magazine_pieces' makes the retrieval context clear: use this when you need a single complete piece after listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with the sibling list tools is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return one desk writer's full roster record — pole, bio, tier, byline status, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Writer slug from list_writers, e.g. ray-delgado. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bio | Yes | |
| pole | Yes | |
| slug | Yes | |
| tier | Yes | |
| api_version | Yes | |
| canonicalUrl | Yes | |
| display_name | Yes | |
| byline_allowed | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope ('full roster record' plus fields) but no deeper behavioral context such as errors, prerequisites, or lookup behavior. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and a compact field list. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only, one-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what will be returned, and the schema covers the required slug parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single parameter, including its source and an example ('Writer slug from list_writers, e.g. ray-delgado'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries that weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one desk writer's full roster record'), and it lists the concrete fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from list_writers and get_magazine_piece by scope and resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The singular wording implies this tool is for fetching a single writer record, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer it over list_writers or what conditions rule it out. Routing to alternatives is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List juxtaposition pieces generated by the writers' desk — title, format, question, contributing writers. Returns an honest empty array when no pieces have been generated yet (the corpus binding is not live; see AGENTS.md 'the corpus gap').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max rows (default 50, max 200). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| limit | Yes | |
| pieces | Yes | |
| api_version | Yes | |
| total_matching | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it returns an honest empty array rather than an error when no pieces exist, and explains the 'corpus gap' with a pointer to AGENTS.md. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and output fields, the second adds the important empty-array caveat. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple optional-limit list tool, the description covers behavior, scope, and output fields; annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the input schema with default and max values. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List'), a precise resource ('juxtaposition pieces generated by the writers' desk'), and the returned fields (title, format, question, contributing writers). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_magazine_piece and list_writers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It is clear this is the listing tool for magazine pieces, and the empty-array note tells the agent that calling it is still appropriate when no pieces have been generated. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-piece or writer lookups, but the list scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the four fictional staff writers on the SalesLeader desk — slug, display name, pole, bio, and byline status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | |
| writers | Yes | |
| api_version | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result is a fixed set of exactly four fictional writers, avoiding expectations of arbitrary or paginated data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that states the action, the scope, and the returned fields without any redundant wording. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent exactly what will be returned and the size of the result set, leaving no critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The empty schema fully covers the input surface, and the description adds no conflicting or confusing parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('the four fictional staff writers on the SalesLeader desk'), and enumerates the fields returned. It clearly distinguishes this list tool from sibling tools like get_writer or list_magazine_pieces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool lists the complete writer roster for the SalesLeader desk. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_writer for single-writer lookup, but the scoping is precise enough for an agent to infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
get_magazine_pieceget_writerlist_magazine_pieceslist_writersClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity – fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge – works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge – works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Read-only Get2Great magazine essays on who is good at a job, and the management-tool catalog.
Read-only Bicycle Guide registry: published guides, homes, taxonomy, capability spine. No auth.
Public read-only MCP for products, frameworks, guides, methodology, and blog metadata.
Browse published podcasts, video shows, and screenplays. Read-only public discovery.
